In Praise of the Churchill VIII

[CombinedArms]

I've recently come to appreciate the strengths of the Churchill VIII, which seems to me to give you quite a package for 138 points:

1. Excellent frontal armor. Very good side armor.

2. An excellent HE blast from the 95mm gun.

3. A "C" charge that can penetrate Panthers from the front (I've recently killed two that way.)

Yes, it's slow, and sometimes has only one or two 'c' charges, but I've found if you buy about 3 you'll get one with say, 5-6 'c' charges which can be your all purpose MBT. You can buy 3 regular C VIIIs for 414 points, which offers great combat power for the money, in my book. Not sure how historical that is....

Anyway, why is the Churchill VIII cheaper than the Sherman 105 (151 pts), even though the Church VIII is more survivable and has a better "c" charge? Why is it so much cheaper than the Sherm Jumbo (185 pts), despite the similar armor protection and the fact that the Jumbo has a weaker gun? It also costs only about 20pts more than a vanilla Sherman, while outclassing it in protection, HE, and armor penetration. In general, I think Shermans are WAY overpriced relative to combat ability. This seems to be the principle reason why it's hardest to win with US forces (assuming the stats I've seen on the subject are true.)

Anyway, it's great to have ONE Allied tank that has good survivability and is lethal to both Panthers and Tigers AND infantry, all for 138 points. Does anyone have info on how these were used, historically.

Any other favorite price-performance bargains in the CM armored field? (I know this has been much discussed, but it's hard to resist returning to it!) The German AFVs offer many possiblities, among which I might choose the Hetzer (though the Panther and Tiger are also, arguably, real bargains.) On the US side, the only possibilites as bargains seem to me the M8, Hellcat and Jackson--none of which offer any protection, but at least their fairly cheap gun platforms.

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]</p>

[Porajkl]

Well, the biggest drawback for Churchill is its cumbrousness. It's sooo slow. It has overmodeled gun in CMBO (as stated in some previous post). They are however good to use against AI, but in one PBEM my battle I convinced myself that they aren't such big threat. My opponent was British and has bought 2 Churchills, I had Jpz IV and Hummel. It was quite shocking when you see Jpz popping up smoke and running for cover (I was always thinking that only Allies are such cowards! ). I'd do the same, because it was not Jpz/70 with its long gun and he couldn't harm it. But because they are so slow, I could just run my Hummel around the map and destroying his infantry before he could catch me with Churchills. So the Churchills are not so good against human. Well, he surrendered after I killed almost all of his infantry and destroyed one Churchill with speeding Skdz 7/2 with rear shot and the other one with close assault of infantry (with panzerfausts). My both tanks survived.

[Col Deadmarsh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CombinedArms:

Any other favorite price-performance bargains in the CM armored field? (I know this has been much discussed, but it's hard to resist returning to it!) The German AFVs offer many possiblities, among which I might choose the Hetzer (though the Panther and Tiger are also, arguably, real bargains.) On the US side, the only possibilites as bargains seem to me the M8, Hellcat and Jackson--none of which offer any protection, but at least their fairly cheap gun platforms.

<hr></blockquote>

I think the Wasp is a great bargain and one of the best reasons to take the British. It's only 57 points compared to the German 251/16 which is 74 points. In comparision, the Wasp has a 75 meter range compared to the 50 meter range of the German vehicle. Although the 251/16 has an mg, the Wasp makes up for this by having a smoke mortar to get out of bad situations where enemy vehicles show up. The speed and armor averages out to be about the same for both vehicles so basically with the Wasp you're getting a flame vehicle with a better range for 17 points less. That's a bargain in my book.

[CombinedArms]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Porajkl:

Well, the biggest drawback for Churchill is its cumbrousness. It's sooo slow. <hr></blockquote>

You can partly cope with the slowness by moving Fast most of the time, only going into Hunt when you think you're approaching a target. I think it's basically best as an attack tank in concert with assaulting infantry which can protect its flanks--which I guess is largely how it was intended to be used.

One of the Panthers I killed was against a human, one against the AI. The gun may be overmodeled, but, hey, the Allies need all the help they can get against highly effective and generally underpriced German armor.

The Wasp is also really good, as mentioned--if you can find the right context in which to use it, and keep it alive till it reaches its target.

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]</p>

[Chosun-few]

anyone know how vehicles are priced???

Seems to me that the allies had so many shermans they were happy to abandon them behind the lines for minor breakdowns. I read of one incident where a small bridge collapsed and the fix was to drive a sherman into the gap and bulldoze a road over it.

If so it would seem that shermans should be cheaper than they are. It is nothing to do with manufactoring cost or combat strength, simply availability...

[Porajkl]

And here we go again... The PRICES!

ps. Churchill even on "fast" order is very slow.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Good quesrtion, i am failry new here myself, so i was'nt around when this was discussed beforehand.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CombinedArms:

[QB]You can buy 3 regular C VIIIs for 414 points, which offers great combat power for the money, in my book. Not sure how historical that is....

<hr></blockquote>

Not very, if at all. A Churchill Squadron had two infantry support Churchills with 95mm howitzers in Squadron HQ. That was it.

If you do a search with my username and 'commonwealth squadron OOB' or somefink along those lines, you may turn up an old thread where a few of those who are interested in the Commonwealth provided a lot of info on the structure. I think it was the infamous one where Jason tried to prove mathematically that all the Commonwealth vets were wrong about the number of Fireflies in their troops

[Iron Chef Sakai]

I like the Cromwells better for some reason.....

[Redwolf]

Prices in CMBO are made from combat effectivness. People frequently underrate that speed is quite expensive, that a turret costs more than a meeting engagement QB would rectify. Transport capability is quite expensive as well, but generally not needed in CMBO. Prices look more correct if you use typical WW2 engagement ranges, but typical quickbattle ranges. The Nashorn suddenly becomes useful of the 75mm Shermans shooting back keep missing and the .50cal can't touch it anymore. MGs on vehicles cost, too, but they seem expesinve given the bad performance of MGs in CMBO.

I can second the Cromwell comment. Not only it is not as slow as the Churchill, it is one of the fastest tanks in CMBO, kinda like a Hellcat for Fionn-75.

The penetration data of the 95mm is also in Rexfords book, last time I bitched about the CMBO value I had to shut up because all the published data justified the CMBO value.

It occurs to me that the accuracy of the 95mm could maybe be even lower, that would solve some problems with abusing the Cromwells as a tank hunter and it would make the Churchill an appropriate sitting duck when facing a Panther. Reading one reports, the hit probablity of the 95mm is quoted to be 1/6th of the 6 pdr, which would explain why noone hunted Panzer with them.

[Warmaker]

As an ardent Axis player I hate the 17pdr of the Sherman Fireflies which I feel is a good med. tank for the Allies. The armor isn't what I'm used to compared to Panthers and Tigers but you'll need a 75mm or better to kill it frontally (except of course to luck). It's closed top too to avoid airbursts killing your crew.

The main thing though is that the 17pdr is roughly on the '88s level in CMBO's terms. Good tank killing power and good infantry killing power to boot.

For pure infantry killing power (as far as Allied armor goes) I really like the Sherman 105. The mobility of the Sherman fitted with a good infantry killing gun. The gun is mounted on a turret which I feel is a nice advantage compared to the StuH'42 and Wespe. Plus, I'm sure it's got a damn .50 cal too IIRC.

Flamethrower equipped AFVs get a special mention too!

[ParaBellum]

Hehe... And then there was the day when a lowly 50mm Pak killed my opponents Churchill VIII... Boy was he pissed!

First time that I got tungsten rounds for my poor little Germans...

[CombinedArms]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

Prices in CMBO are made from combat effectivness. People frequently underrate that speed is quite expensive, that a turret costs more than a meeting engagement QB would rectify. Transport capability is quite expensive as well, but generally not needed in CMBO. Prices look more correct if you use typical WW2 engagement ranges, but [not?] typical quickbattle ranges. The Nashorn suddenly becomes useful if the 75mm Shermans shooting back keep missing and the .50cal can't touch it anymore. MGs on vehicles cost, too, but they seem expesinve given the bad performance of MGs in CMBO.

<hr></blockquote>

This is very clarifying--and suggests that the values assigned to the tanks by BTS probably better corresponds to real world values than to CM-battlefield values--which also makes sense give that BTS hadn't played the game as much as we have when they assigned the values.

As I see it, the things that really matter for a CM AFV (in most cases--there are always exceptions) are the following, in this order.

1. Survivability. This is both because a dead tank is of no further use and because a dead tank costs you mucho victory points. And while Shermans often went for weeks without seeing a German tank, a tank-free engagment in CM is quite a rarity.

2. Tank killing ability. Killing enemy tanks puts powerful and expensive units out of action. It also helps survivability--a dead tank can't kill you.

3. Infantry killing ability. Ranked below killing tanks because infantry is usually less lethal to your tank, if properly handled, and, unlike a tank, it's hard to kill a whole lot of infantry with a single round. It takes a lot of HE, even with a great gun, to kill 120-200 pts worth of infantry. Also, most tanks are inherently effective infantry killers--it's sort of a given for any gun above 50mm, and if you've killed all the enemy AFVs (thanks to 1 &2) you can stand off and murder their infantry at your leisure. The really good anti-infantry tanks deserve a little bonus, though.

4. Ability to avoid bogging. This doesn't matter much in dry conditions, but can be crucially important in damp-to-mud conditions. I'd rank it higher or lower, based on conditions. #4 represents an average.

5. Speed. Again, this matters a lot in some scenarios or on some maps, not so much on others. In most of the games I've played--which are usually on midsized maps with AT assets poised everywhere to murder the unwary--speed is a lesser consideration. I zippy Cromwell can be great in some scenarios, but less use than a lumbering Churchill in the combined arms tank-infantry attacks against prepared positions with AT assets with overlapping fields of fire which constitutes most of the CM games I've played. These positions need to be methodically dismantled before speed can emerge as a major asset. (Maybe my view is influenced by the fact that I tend to play scenarios rather than QB meeting engagements, where speed may matter more.)

My observation is that the German armor tends to excel at either category 1 or 2, and often both. Some German AFVs are good at both and still quite cheap. There is NO cheap US AFV that is good at both 1 & 2, and none below 175 pts that is any good at 1. Most German AFVs are also good at category 4 and seem to get that for free, whereas US HVSS tanks are wickedly expensive, among the worst bargains in CM. You seem to be paying for an excess of good psi, since 12.5 psi, native to the Panther and PzIV, is about all yo need in most situation. British tanks are sometimes really good at 1 (Churchill VII, VIII, Croc) and sometimes good at 2 (Firefly, Archer, Achilles, Challenger), though rarely at both. Still, British armor is often both more effective and a better bargain in CM.

The Churchill VIII is strong at categories 1, 2, and 3. (2 because of the effectiveness of the 'c' round, though that's iffy because there aren't so many of them.) It's about equal to a vanilla Sherman in category four. It's slowness is a drawback, but that's also what makes it cheap. In many situations I can live with that to gain 1, 2, and 3.

[Redwolf]

I'd like to add that there are huge differences between the tank's going on bad ground (mud, snow or scattered trees). You pay for the good suspension on the Cromwell and the HVSS Shermans, but it is worth the points because it free's you from the streets without slowing down to a crawl.

[Col Deadmarsh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CombinedArms:

5. Speed. Again, this matters a lot in some scenarios or on some maps, not so much on others. In most of the games I've played--which are usually on midsized maps with AT assets poised everywhere to murder the unwary--speed is a lesser consideration. I zippy Cromwell can be great in some scenarios, but less use than a lumbering Churchill in the combined arms tank-infantry attacks against prepared positions with AT assets with overlapping fields of fire which constitutes most of the CM games I've played. These positions need to be methodically dismantled before speed can emerge as a major asset.<hr></blockquote>

Can you explain what you mean by this? It sounds like you're talking about an attack/defense scenario in which the defense needs to be dismantled before continuing an attack on that portion of the map with high-priced tanks. I'm confused though as to why speed would be an asset to the attacker as the defender would be on his back lines the entire time, thus preventing a flank.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

My observation is that the German armor tends to excel at either category 1 or 2, and often both. Some German AFVs are good at both and still quite cheap. There is NO cheap US AFV that is good at both 1 & 2, and none below 175 pts that is any good at 1. Most German AFVs are also good at category 4 and seem to get that for free, whereas US HVSS tanks are wickedly expensive, among the worst bargains in CM. You seem to be paying for an excess of good psi, since 12.5 psi, native to the Panther and PzIV, is about all yo need in most situation. British tanks are sometimes really good at 1 (Churchill VII, VIII, Croc) and sometimes good at 2 (Firefly, Archer, Achilles, Challenger), though rarely at both. Still, British armor is often both more effective and a better bargain in CM.

The Churchill VIII is strong at categories 1, 2, and 3. (2 because of the effectiveness of the 'c' round, though that's iffy because there aren't so many of them.) It's about equal to a vanilla Sherman in category four. It's slowness is a drawback, but that's also what makes it cheap. In many situations I can live with that to gain 1, 2, and 3.<hr></blockquote>

I'm wondering how you'd rate the Sherman IIA in comparison to the other American Sherman versions and the IIA's British counterparts in terms of combat worth per dollar spent.

I've never used it before but it seems with it's 76mm gun and fast turret, the IIA would have a place on the battlefield in certain situations where the M10 with it's slow turret would be a liability.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ParaBellum:

Hehe... And then there was the day when a lowly 50mm Pak killed my opponents Churchill VIII... Boy was he pissed!

First time that I got tungsten rounds for my poor little Germans...<hr></blockquote>

50mm pak is a decent weapon. Get this, i took out a Churchill with a panzershreck once, something i hope i never have ot attempt to replicate, as it was my only option at that stage of the game. My opponent was shocked, he never got to fire it's gun once, it was the Arve model i beleive.

[Cpl Carrot]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

Get this, i took out a Churchill with a panzershreck once, it was the Arve model i beleive.<hr></blockquote>

The ARVE only has 80mm front armour. Not too much effort is required to KO it with anything.

[Warmaker]

A Pzschreck is quite capable of killing the Churchill VIII. If that Churchill gets spots your AT team and gets the first shots off, well, put the drinks in the fridge and turn the lights out. The party's over for your AT team.

IMO, the British 17 pdr is superior to the U.S. 76mm. With or without tungsten it has better penetration over the 76mm. It has a faster velocity over the 76mm and a better blast value (33 vs 40).

In comparing the 17 pdr that can be found on the Firefly to the '88 of the Tiger I, even without tungsten it has better penetration over the '88. The advantage of the '88 is it's immense infantry killing power with a blast value of 51 to the 17 pdr's value of 40.

Nevertheless, you don't want your tanks to be in front of either gun.

[Pud]

My two weapons of choice, Churchil VIII paired with a 17 pdr armed Challenger.

I actually had a VIII survive a direct hit from a panzerschrek, not many tanks can do that.

[Tero]

I am a huge fan. Good HE, excellent AT accuracy and apparently extremely lucky.

The AT accuracy is so uncanny I am inclined to think there is something amiss there.

In a PBEM I had one shoot at a contact (SP-gun ?) with HE at ~500 meters and all the shots went wild. Then on the other side of the map at approx the same range a confirmed Stug lit up and I targeted it. Wham-bam-thank-you-mam, first shot right between the eyes. And in a recent PBEM I lost a Stug to a first shot despite my effort not to let his Chruchill see my Stug so the Stug would not have a chance to shoot first.

Lesson: always have some infantry around to back up spotting so the AT shot is fired againts armour.